A Pushgun for a Pushgun?

''If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.''

-The Code of Hammurabi

Michael (Linden) has a strong voice. My desk is pretty close to his, so I hear him well when he talks to residents over the phone. Listening to him sometimes reminds me of when I was five years old and getting a lecture from my dad on why I shouldn't hit my little sister.

''Just because she hit you does not mean it is okay to hit her.''

I always thought it was unfair how she never seemed to get in as much trouble - even though she started it. I got in trouble when I hit her first. It took me a few years to figure out that we were both getting the same lecture, and by then I knew that it isn't okay to slug your sister for any reason.  

This brings us rather roundabout to transparency. How much should Linden Lab tell the residents of Second Life about how we choose to enforce the Terms of Service? Our policy so far is to maintain a one on one relationship with every user - this means we don't talk about you to other people. The main reason for this is to protect your privacy. For the most part this works fine - but about once every three months, it becomes a hot topic in the forums - someone claims that we are wrong or unfair in our enforcement, and demands explanation. Because our policy is to not make these issues public, we can not discuss them in a the forum.  

This is awkward for us. We can not defend ourselves from any accusation because we are protecting the accuser. Because we offer no evidence on the contrary, we appear to be inconsistent, and lose the trust of the residents. However, we will always respond to a reasonable request for information one on one - I know this because I hear Michael patiently explaining our policies over the phone almost every day.  

On the other hand, providing complete transparency is much worse.  It would mean publicizing all the information we use when investigating abuse so that the entire community knows everything we do.  This entails posting the abuse reports, and then posting all of the data we use in our investigation - which often entails chat logs, dwell logs, and transaction info for everyone involved.  In some cases involving alts, it also means information on real life name, credit card info, and ip addresses to show that the alternate account is the same person.  It also involves showing all the information on past offenses - if you break the rules a lot, we will be harsher on you.  

That is a pretty extreme example, but it might help us find a compromise where we can protect resident's privacy while exhibiting a fair enforcement policy.  We will never reveal the name of the reporter or reportee, or chat logs, or other identifying information to the public. However, we may be able to release information on the time and type of abuse, which will let anyone involved identify it, and list the length of a suspension, in order to show consistency.  

This way, I will know that my sister has to go to her room and think about what she has done too, and that she is slowly learning that it isn't OK to punch your brother. And maybe more importantly, I know that dad is doing his job.  

-- Ben Linden  

Comments

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I understand that in some cases, the knowledge of someone's"misbehaviour" should be "public", but it's hard to insist that LL reveals the details - I'm not sure about the US laws on database protection. I would think that LL wouldn't be able to reveal anything about confidential information that is received by residents.

In some countries, "criminal offenses" are public matters - this means that once you've been convicted, the public has a right to know. But in other cases, the "criminal record" is as private as any other kind of data - the police and the judicial system may have access to it, but it's not "public" unless the citizen wants to reveal it. It's very hard to choose the more "fair" approach. I can only hope you judge fairly about the option you take - and then stick to it forever (changing policies on those sensible matters is much worse!).

One way to deal with this issue would be to let the rating messages become a sort of a "log" on residents' profiles. This would mean that I would be able to rate someone negatively and warn other people about him/her. However, with a system so easily "gamed", nobody would prevent other people to spread libel and slander this way. Who would decide then?

Very hard decisions on the subject of digital law. I love your thoughts on it, and I hope to hear more about them. I certainly haven't a strong opinion either way (BTW, just for the record, in my country, the criminal record is private and confidential - but the courts' decisions are public).

[Tiger Crossing]

A, B, and C are involved in an altercation, and are penalized. C is of the opinion that he was an innocent bystander and was punished unfairly. C takes his beef to the forums. LL can't comment on the altercation without revealing information about A and B.

Therein is Robin's issue of transparency... Where do you draw the line, if you draw one at all?

Obviously, complete transparency should not be an option, but complete opacity doesn't seem to be working as well as it could either. What could be done in the middle ground that is both fair, safe, simple, and clear?

My first thought is a combination of our own Police Blotter and Fark.com's system of icons. If the Linden that handles the abuse report and its consequences has to select from a limited number of labels for each punishee, it would not only make a clear record of the event but would help prevent unfair penalties. If there's no clear choice to label a participant, then perhaps they weren't truly involved.

Whether these label sets are listed publicly or only sent to the participants (with an indication of which icon was theirs) is a matter for debate. As an untethered list of offences, it would be in human nature for people to attach the names as they think they fit, and not necessarily correctly. But finger pointing happens anyway, so I don’t see this causing great ham. It would STILL not be allowed on the forums.

But when it comes right down to it, just WHAT do the people that post to the forums about "unfairness" hoping to accomplish there? As far as I know, our dear forums readers have no power to revoke suspensions or bans....